Search

Embedded performance validity tests (PVTs) have been criticized for their poor specificity and sensitivity. Aggregated models of embedded PVTs have been proposed to improve their classification accuracy; however, limitations to aggregation-based improvement of PVTs have yet to be explored. The current study evaluated the classification accuracy of 3 types of models of embedded PVTs in the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery for Adults (HRNB): a single-, a pairwise-, and a triple-failure model. In addition, this study evaluated the impact of aggregating between 1 and 6 embedded PVTs in each of these 3 types of models. Analyzing only the 2, 4, and 6 most discriminating embedded PVTs in the single-, pairwise-, and triple-failure models maximized classification accuracy, respectively. Comparisons across these models indicated that the single-failure model including only the two most discriminating embedded PVTs had the best classification accuracy; however, classification accuracy was only minimally improved in this model relative to analyzing just Reliable Digit Span. These results suggest that aggregation of embedded PVTs from the HRNB does not substantially improve their classification accuracy and that the benefits of aggregating PVTs may only emerge when the PVTs entered into the aggregated models have sufficient classification accuracy on their own.

Using the Halstead-Reitan Battery profiles of 796 people, a formula for the detection of malingering was cross-validated to assess the false positive rate. Subjects included normals, psychiatric cases, and all major types of organics. The formula incorrectly designated 27% of the sample as fakers (i.e., as false positives). Of the 120 head trauma cases, 27 (22.5%) obtained Fake scores, while 93 (77.5%) were correctly assessed as not malingering.

Modal Profile Analysis was used to cluster students (aged 9 to 14 years) on 16 subtest scores from the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery for Children (HRNB-C). This analysis produced eight modal profile types, all of which were replicated in multiple samples. An initial attempt to establish external validity indicated that the modal groups display dissimilar patterns of performance on independent variables. The present typology is compared to similar typologies developed with adult neuropsychological data. In sum, the current classification system provided less coverage than the adult typologies, but produced more unique or homogeneous modal groups. Discussion focuses on potential clinical and research uses of the modal HRNB-C profiles.

The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (HRNB) is the first factor-analyzed neuropsychological battery and consists of three batteries for young children, older children, and adults. Halstead's original factor analysis extracted four factors from the adult version of the battery, which were the basis for his theory of biological intelligence. These factors were called Central Integrative Field, Abstraction, Power, and Directional. Since this original analysis, Reitan's additions to the battery, and the development of the child versions of the test, this factor-analytic research continued. An introduction and the adult literature are reviewed in Ross, Allen, and Goldstein ( in press ). In this supplemental article, factor-analytic studies of the HRNB with children are reviewed. It is concluded that factor analysis of the HRNB or Reitan-Indiana Neuropsychological Battery with children does not replicate the extensiveness of the adult literature, although there is some evidence that when the traditional battery for older children is used, the factor structure is similar to what is found in adult studies. Reitan's changes to the battery appear to have added factors including language and sensory-perceptual factors. When other tests and scoring methods are used in addition to the core battery, differing solutions are produced.

The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (HRNB) was the first factor-analyzed neuropsychological battery. It was based on a series of tests studied in Ward Halstead's laboratory at the University of Chicago, was accomplished in collaboration with a group of eminent statisticians, and was published in 1947 . Four factors were extracted based on Halstead's tests called central integrative field, abstraction, power, and directional and constituted what was described as biological intelligence. Since this original analysis, Reitan's additions to the battery, and the proposal of Reitan and Wolfson's model of neuropsychological functioning, this factor-analytic research continued. This article reviews factor-analytic research concluding that Halstead's analysis has held up reasonably well and there is support for the Reitan and Wolfson model. However, Reitan's revisions of the battery added tests that form a distinct language factor and the sensory-perceptual tests that generally form a separate factor. Other tests and scoring methods used in individual studies modified the core battery and produced somewhat differing solutions. The complexity of the tests prevents the HRNB from being a factorially pure battery, and simple structure is rarely, if ever, reached. Current versions of the HRNB appear to evaluate both "biological" and "psychometric" intelligence, which appear to load on separate factors.

Modal profile analysis was used to cluster subjects on 11 scores from the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery. The final analysis produced 18 modal profile types, of which 12 were replicated in multiple samples of subjects with differing clinical diagnoses. Subjects who had been assigned to modal types according to their correlations with the modal profiles were more similar to the centroid of their assigned groups than to the centroids of all other groups. Assigned subjects were eight times more likely to belong to their assigned groups than to any of the other groups. Fifty-four percent of subjects were assigned to a modal profile group according to the adopted similarity rule. Discussion includes a comparison of the present typology with a similar typology of Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery profiles.

The relationship of age to neuropsychological test performance was explored on the subtests comprising the Halstead-Reitan Battery and allied tests. Performance of 192 pseudo-neurologic control patients across 10-year age intervals from 16 to 65 was analyzed. The findings indicate a strong age-performance effect on spatial and more complex integrative tests with peak performance between 25 to 35 years of age and a decline thereafter. A lack of significant decline was noted on sensory, motor, and language tasks. The findings reveal that there is a curvilinear change in performance as a function of age and were discussed with regard to the obvious need to modify decision strategies to account for the age of the patient.

This study investigated the nature of the relationship between neuropsychological tests, the Halstead-Reitan Battery, and a measure of everyday living ability, the Community Competence Scale. The sample consisted of 40 geriatric patients referred for suspected dementia. The results indicated that neuropsychological tests were moderately predictive of measures of functional daily living skills. Although some specific neuropsychological measures, or combination of measures, were more predictive of particular functional daily living skills, their relationship did not necessarily follow logical or theoretical expectations. Thus, while it may be safe for neuropsychologists to make predictions about a patient's global capacity to function independently, predictions regarding specific functional daily living skills may be unwarranted.

The relationships between the Achievement, Intellectual Screening, and Development scales from the Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) and a comprehensive neuropsychological battery were examined in a sample of 49 children with histories of behavioral problems, learning problems, or both but without known neurological impairments or pervasive developmental disorders. Using stepwise multiple regression, the PIC scales predicted global neuropsychological functions moderately well, particularly verbal IQ and achievement. More specific neuropsychological functions were not significantly predicted. The Developmental scale from the PIC consistently outperformed the other two PIC “cognitive-triad” scales, and the latter made no statistically significant additional contribution in predicting neuropsychological functions after the contribution of the Development scale was taken into account.